When I was living in India an old man that I came to know and enjoy talking with had an interesting insight on ignoring things.

It goes something like this.

If you learn that there is a cobra in your backyard you risk ignoring it with your life because if you ignore it, most likely it will stay there and build a nest and then you will have more cobras in your yard which will only increase your risk.

At times when you have ignored this fact long enough you will forget about the cobra in the backyard and step out to enjoy your backyard. But, the cobra will still be there and you could step on it or get close enough to it and it will strike you. Even worse, your children will be at risk of being harmed by the cobra.

It will not be the cobras fault and you should not feel anger towards the cobra. It is doing what it knows to do and in the way in which it knows to do it. Rather, you will have no choice but to recognize that by ignoring the cobra and not killing it or at least chasing it away, you have brought the suffering and harm upon yourself and your children.

Conclusion and advice: Hillary is far more dangerous than a cobra and it will be far more dangerous to ignore her.

9:08 am June 20, 2014

History book writer wrote:

Ridiculous article from the guy who is famous for working on the Contract Against America in the 1990's when Newt Gingrich and other republicans routinely attacked Hillary Clinton..Like old times, John??
I was stunned when I read this headline and each line of Mr. Feehery's remarks --which reek of mysogyny and unmistakable disrespect for passages in women's lives. The scorn and loathing are palpable throughout this piece.
Such stinko insensitivity is what cost Mitt Romney with his "binders full of women," Paul Ryan with blaming the impoverished mother for "shaming her child" having school lunches instead of bringing a brown bag like the richer, "better" kids, and--of course--remniscent of the relentless anti-women comments of parades of republicans candidates like Todd Akin, Murdock and others like them who lost or will lose their coveted seats in Washington, D.C. And a republican McDaniel's staffers sneak into photograph a bedridden woman in hospice care in a nursing home to use in a campaign ad against his opponent.
Degrading, unbelievable. This is the year 2014 and republicans still have not evolved.
Oh, that's right --they don't believe in evolution.
Rick Santorum lost his election in Pennsylvania in a huge way by saying women were "selfish for working outside of the home, or for wanting careers, and were ruining the family and promoting lesbianism."
Mike Huckabee said women can't "control their libidos," The right wing arm of the republican party motormouth Rush Limbaugh used slurs week after week foisting his hostilies on a female law student who advocated for womens' rights.
State after state run by extremist republican governers and legislatures have passed bills to demean women, treat them like children who need male supervision, obstruct their freedom with doctors, or ability to determine their personal and private reproductive futures. Republicans disregard settled law by the Supreme Court in their ongoing war on women.
The republican house of representatives in D.C. has passed hundreds of bills attempting to restrict women's lives. Women are noticing all of this. Look how quickly I came up with this many examples here and now.
I think the wall street journal is making a mistake allowing Mr. Feehery this forum.

10:55 am June 20, 2014

@8:03 wrote:

Mr. Feehery should send Hilly a cobra.

4:16 pm June 20, 2014

@9:08 "History book writer" (Yeah, right!) wrote:

"Look how quickly I came up with this many examples here and now."

Yes, it is well known that one can find anyhing one wishes to find on the internet.

Unfortunately, you cannot find the "hundreds of bills attempting to restrict women's lives" can you?

There are, however, laws facilitating the destruction of children in their mothers' womb.
For convenience's sake.
Now, who passed those?

4:17 pm June 20, 2014

Three martinis before breakfast... wrote:

... and still sharp as a tack!

You go, girl!

11:01 pm June 20, 2014

to commenter at 4:16 p.m. wrote:

The Supreme Court upheld a woman's right to an abortion. It is settled law. Did you just arrive on the planet?
I typed that post in under a minute and a half just on memory stopping only to spell check. Do go onto the sites tracking the bills year after year that republicans send through the house of representatives and get up to speed. Fox and Rush won't inform you of that.

11:09 pm June 20, 2014

Anonymous wrote:

A recent report from the Guttmacher Institute details the extent of 2011′s war on Women’s Reproductive Rights. The report states,
•By almost any measure, issues related to reproductive health and rights at the state level received unprecedented attention in 2011. In the 50 states combined, legislators introduced more than 1,100 reproductive health and rights-related provisions, a sharp increase from the 950 introduced in 2010. By year’s end, 135 of these provisions had been enacted in 36 states, an increase from the 89 enacted in 2010 and the 77 enacted in 2009. (Note: This analysis refers to reproductive health and rights-related “provisions,” rather than bills or laws, since bills introduced and eventually enacted in the states contain multiple relevant provisions.)
•Fully 68% of these new provisions—92 in 24 states—-restrict access to abortion services, a striking increase from last year, when 26% of new provisions restricted abortion. The 92 new abortion restrictions enacted in 2011 shattered the previous record of 34 adopted in 2005.

11:30 pm June 20, 2014

From the writer of history books wrote:

These add up to at least 100--dozens of bills multiplied by several years of pushing bills and pushing anti-rights provisions into other bills, so I am right.
Guttmacher:
"In 2011–2013, members of Congress introduced dozens of bills aimed at dismantling abortion rights, including those that would force abortion coverage out of all insurance plans (public or private), ban all abortions in the United States at or after 20 weeks from fertilization, or prohibit federal grants from going to medical facilities that prescribe medication abortion via telemedicine. The House passed a version of each of these provisions—at least once—over the last several years, yet abortion rights supporters in the Senate have blocked them from moving forward, and some have explicitly drawn presidential veto threats. This is in stark contrast to the rapid pace that radical anti-abortion laws have been enacted across large swaths of the country, but mostly in the states controlled by politicians with an extreme anti-abortion ideology..."

2:04 pm June 21, 2014

ignore reality wrote:

Keep up the attacks tea publicans and get nastier with insults, lies and hateful comments.

She cannot be ignored.

Add a Comment

Error message

Name

We welcome thoughtful comments from readers. Please comply with our guidelines. Our blogs do not require the use of your real name.

About Washington Wire

Washington Wire is one of the oldest standing features in American journalism. Since the Wire launched on Sept. 20, 1940, the Journal has offered readers an informal look at the capital. Now online, the Wire provides a succession of glimpses at what’s happening behind hot stories and warnings of what to watch for in the days ahead. The Wire is led by Reid J. Epstein, with contributions from the rest of the bureau. Washington Wire now also includes Think Tank, our home for outside analysis from policy and political thinkers.